Irving takes more mid-range shots, and he makes a higher percentage of them. My guess is that he gets less open looks than Rondo, too. Regardless, there's no objective way to say Rondo is better at mid-range shooting than Irving.

So basically, Rondo is slightly better from 16-23 ft, while Irving is noticeably better from 10-15 ft.

What are the shot attempt breakdowns, and is 10-15 ft really even midrange shooting? How many guards actually take many shots from this range? Basially , we're talking about who shoots better floaters, aren't we?

I just think it would have been better to strictly look at the 16-23 ft shots, as far as midrange shooting is concerned.

Irving has 98 attempts from 10-to-15 feet, and 132 from 16-to-23 feet.

Rondo has 26 attempts from 10-to-15 feet, and 122 from 16-to-23 feet.

And yes, I consider 10-to-15 feet to be midrange shooting. At 15 feet, you're closer to the 3PT line than you are to the basket.

Looks to me like Rondo just doesn't take many 10-15 ft shots. Not that big of a surprise his percentage is low. All it takes is a few missed shots to tank your percentage.

Rondo shoots better from 16-23, what I consider to be a more accurate assesment of mid-range shooting.

Sure 15 ft is mid-range too, 10 ft surely is not. I'd like to see what the numbers look like from 12-20 ft. That would be a better definition of mid-range in my opinion.

All this is ignoring the fact that a strategy often taken with Rondo is to leave him completely open from this range, the 2010 Finals being the biggest example.

Another strategy often taken by other teams is to leave KG completely open from this range. Watch any Celtics game and you'll see him take plenty of uncontested shots from this range. Does that make him a lesser shooter/scorer?

It makes him a lesser shooter than someone who makes contested shots at the same rate as KG makes uncontested shots. Definitely.

Contested shots are tougher than uncontested shots. I'd say this is obvious but your comprehension of basketball and math has come into question.

Yes, you're still stuck on reading comprehension. You're answering a comparison that I didn't ask about and gloating that I couldn't answer a question that nobody had asked. Oh, and if you could ratchet up your comprehension of basketball, you might learn that something called "shot selection" is often considered when comparing players. The fact that a player jacks up contested, low percentage shots isn't seen as a favorable trait for shooters as much as you'd think.

Worth note, to help you understand basketball a bit more, when you are playing with poor teammates, your shot selection is hindered. Kyrie takes more contested shots than Rondo because he has to. So Rondo shooting a similar midrange percentage is nowhere near as impressive as you seem to think it is.

Obviously I didn't ignore the baselines. I didn't compare the 88% to the 44% of games the Cavs won, I compared the increase (61% to 88% compared to 25% to 44%). Rondo's increase was about 50% higher than Irving's. Over an entire season, Irving's scoring is worth about 15 extra win, Rondo's triple doubles would be worth about 22 wins.

No, I'm sorry, this is patently misleading. Over the course of a season, Rondo will have ~4 triple-doubles, and Irving will have ~25 25+ point game. So Irving's impact is clearly stronger than Rondo's.

No, your statement would only hold true if 25 points from Irving impacts a game but 24 points doesn't, or that a triple double from Rondo impacts a game but a double double with 9 rebounds doesn't. You (hopefully) read in at least one of my posts that I wanted similar sample sizes (which I got, 25 to 26). You clearly noticed that Rondo's played 4-5 times as many games as Irving. How hard is it to see, with a 4x game differential, that the only way to get similar sample sizes was to choose a point total that Kyrie hit 4-5 times as often as Rondo had triple doubles?

Your sample has no predictive or conclusive value and is essentially worthless.

Obviously I didn't ignore the baselines. I didn't compare the 88% to the 44% of games the Cavs won, I compared the increase (61% to 88% compared to 25% to 44%). Rondo's increase was about 50% higher than Irving's. Over an entire season, Irving's scoring is worth about 15 extra win, Rondo's triple doubles would be worth about 22 wins.

No, I'm sorry, this is patently misleading. Over the course of a season, Rondo will have ~4 triple-doubles, and Irving will have ~25 25+ point game. So Irving's impact is clearly stronger than Rondo's.

No, your statement would only hold true if 25 points from Irving impacts a game but 24 points doesn't, or that a triple double from Rondo impacts a game but a double double with 9 rebounds doesn't. You (hopefully) read in at least one of my posts that I wanted similar sample sizes (which I got, 25 to 26). You clearly noticed that Rondo's played 4-5 times as many games as Irving. How hard is it to see, with a 4x game differential, that the only way to get similar sample sizes was to choose a point total that Kyrie hit 4-5 times as often as Rondo had triple doubles?

Your sample has no predictive or conclusive value and is essentially worthless.

In a vacuum, yes, but how does "widen the sample as much as you want, triple doubles lead to wins more often than high scoring games" affect your statement?

Obviously I didn't ignore the baselines. I didn't compare the 88% to the 44% of games the Cavs won, I compared the increase (61% to 88% compared to 25% to 44%). Rondo's increase was about 50% higher than Irving's. Over an entire season, Irving's scoring is worth about 15 extra win, Rondo's triple doubles would be worth about 22 wins.

No, I'm sorry, this is patently misleading. Over the course of a season, Rondo will have ~4 triple-doubles, and Irving will have ~25 25+ point game. So Irving's impact is clearly stronger than Rondo's.

No, your statement would only hold true if 25 points from Irving impacts a game but 24 points doesn't, or that a triple double from Rondo impacts a game but a double double with 9 rebounds doesn't. You (hopefully) read in at least one of my posts that I wanted similar sample sizes (which I got, 25 to 26). You clearly noticed that Rondo's played 4-5 times as many games as Irving. How hard is it to see, with a 4x game differential, that the only way to get similar sample sizes was to choose a point total that Kyrie hit 4-5 times as often as Rondo had triple doubles?

I'm sorry, that's not the way impact analysis works.

If you're calculating outcome differences caused by a certain event, then you you can only make inferences based on the occurrence/lack thereof of the event in question.

The fact that you picked poor indicators to describe "impact" (because categorical division of continuous variables is meaningless when arbitrary) is a different issue whatsoever.

Obviously I didn't ignore the baselines. I didn't compare the 88% to the 44% of games the Cavs won, I compared the increase (61% to 88% compared to 25% to 44%). Rondo's increase was about 50% higher than Irving's. Over an entire season, Irving's scoring is worth about 15 extra win, Rondo's triple doubles would be worth about 22 wins.

No, I'm sorry, this is patently misleading. Over the course of a season, Rondo will have ~4 triple-doubles, and Irving will have ~25 25+ point game. So Irving's impact is clearly stronger than Rondo's.

No, your statement would only hold true if 25 points from Irving impacts a game but 24 points doesn't, or that a triple double from Rondo impacts a game but a double double with 9 rebounds doesn't. You (hopefully) read in at least one of my posts that I wanted similar sample sizes (which I got, 25 to 26). You clearly noticed that Rondo's played 4-5 times as many games as Irving. How hard is it to see, with a 4x game differential, that the only way to get similar sample sizes was to choose a point total that Kyrie hit 4-5 times as often as Rondo had triple doubles?

Your sample has no predictive or conclusive value and is essentially worthless.

In a vacuum, yes, but how does "widen the sample as much as you want, triple doubles lead to wins more often than high scoring games" affect your statement?

It has nothing to do with the sample. It has everything to do with basic statistical methods, because you clearly lack a fundamental understanding of how they work.

Obviously I didn't ignore the baselines. I didn't compare the 88% to the 44% of games the Cavs won, I compared the increase (61% to 88% compared to 25% to 44%). Rondo's increase was about 50% higher than Irving's. Over an entire season, Irving's scoring is worth about 15 extra win, Rondo's triple doubles would be worth about 22 wins.

No, I'm sorry, this is patently misleading. Over the course of a season, Rondo will have ~4 triple-doubles, and Irving will have ~25 25+ point game. So Irving's impact is clearly stronger than Rondo's.

No, your statement would only hold true if 25 points from Irving impacts a game but 24 points doesn't, or that a triple double from Rondo impacts a game but a double double with 9 rebounds doesn't. You (hopefully) read in at least one of my posts that I wanted similar sample sizes (which I got, 25 to 26). You clearly noticed that Rondo's played 4-5 times as many games as Irving. How hard is it to see, with a 4x game differential, that the only way to get similar sample sizes was to choose a point total that Kyrie hit 4-5 times as often as Rondo had triple doubles?

I'm sorry, that's not the way impact analysis works.

If you're calculating outcome differences caused by a certain event, then you you can only make inferences based on the occurrence/lack thereof of the event in question.

The fact that you picked poor indicators to describe "impact" (because categorical division of continuous variables is meaningless when arbitrary) is a different issue whatsoever.

Obviously I didn't ignore the baselines. I didn't compare the 88% to the 44% of games the Cavs won, I compared the increase (61% to 88% compared to 25% to 44%). Rondo's increase was about 50% higher than Irving's. Over an entire season, Irving's scoring is worth about 15 extra win, Rondo's triple doubles would be worth about 22 wins.

No, I'm sorry, this is patently misleading. Over the course of a season, Rondo will have ~4 triple-doubles, and Irving will have ~25 25+ point game. So Irving's impact is clearly stronger than Rondo's.

No, your statement would only hold true if 25 points from Irving impacts a game but 24 points doesn't, or that a triple double from Rondo impacts a game but a double double with 9 rebounds doesn't. You (hopefully) read in at least one of my posts that I wanted similar sample sizes (which I got, 25 to 26). You clearly noticed that Rondo's played 4-5 times as many games as Irving. How hard is it to see, with a 4x game differential, that the only way to get similar sample sizes was to choose a point total that Kyrie hit 4-5 times as often as Rondo had triple doubles?

Your sample has no predictive or conclusive value and is essentially worthless.

In a vacuum, yes, but how does "widen the sample as much as you want, triple doubles lead to wins more often than high scoring games" affect your statement?

It has nothing to do with the sample. It has everything to do with basic statistical methods, because you clearly lack a fundamental understanding of how they work.

Okay, in the interest of basic statistical methods we should probably table the argument until Irving is 30 or so and we can have a larger sample size.

Obviously I didn't ignore the baselines. I didn't compare the 88% to the 44% of games the Cavs won, I compared the increase (61% to 88% compared to 25% to 44%). Rondo's increase was about 50% higher than Irving's. Over an entire season, Irving's scoring is worth about 15 extra win, Rondo's triple doubles would be worth about 22 wins.

No, I'm sorry, this is patently misleading. Over the course of a season, Rondo will have ~4 triple-doubles, and Irving will have ~25 25+ point game. So Irving's impact is clearly stronger than Rondo's.

No, your statement would only hold true if 25 points from Irving impacts a game but 24 points doesn't, or that a triple double from Rondo impacts a game but a double double with 9 rebounds doesn't. You (hopefully) read in at least one of my posts that I wanted similar sample sizes (which I got, 25 to 26). You clearly noticed that Rondo's played 4-5 times as many games as Irving. How hard is it to see, with a 4x game differential, that the only way to get similar sample sizes was to choose a point total that Kyrie hit 4-5 times as often as Rondo had triple doubles?

I'm sorry, that's not the way impact analysis works.

If you're calculating outcome differences caused by a certain event, then you you can only make inferences based on the occurrence/lack thereof of the event in question.

The fact that you picked poor indicators to describe "impact" (because categorical division of continuous variables is meaningless when arbitrary) is a different issue whatsoever.

That's pretty funny.

Not sure what's funny.

If you're going to calculate "additional wins" added by a Rondo triple-double, this impact only occurs when Rondo actually records a triple-double.

If you think that this is a poor measure of impact (with which I agree), then you should pick a different one.

But once you've picked a triple-double as a measure, you can't indiscriminately tack in the "additional wins" to every game, calling them "Rondo's contribution".

Maybe you find this funny. I personally find it kind of sad and disappointing, because I wouldn't pass a person in Intro to Stats if they don't understand where the flaw in your argument is.

No matter his position, a teams best player must be able to consistently put the ball in the hoops at a high percentage if that team is going to have any real success. He does not need to be the team's leading scorer, but he must be able to score the ball consistently when needed. Rondo is not that type of player as is being proven this year. With Pierce and Garnett slipping and a silky shooter like Allen gone, Boston's offense has been horrible on the whole and it is because of Rondo's inability to score as clearly Boston's best player. Rondo can't be that guy and as such, is not a player to build around. Rondo can be a fine complementary piece as the 2nd or 3rd best player on a team, but he can't be a team's best player for that team to be a true contender. And sadly Boston has very limited means with which to obtain said player as long as Rondo is on the team, so he needs to go.

No matter his position, a teams best player must be able to consistently put the ball in the hoops at a high percentage if that team is going to have any real success. He does not need to be the team's leading scorer, but he must be able to score the ball consistently when needed. Rondo is not that type of player as is being proven this year. With Pierce and Garnett slipping and a silky shooter like Allen gone, Boston's offense has been horrible on the whole and it is because of Rondo's inability to score as clearly Boston's best player. Rondo can't be that guy and as such, is not a player to build around. Rondo can be a fine complementary piece as the 2nd or 3rd best player on a team, but he can't be a team's best player for that team to be a true contender. And sadly Boston has very limited means with which to obtain said player as long as Rondo is on the team, so he needs to go.

Moranis, this is a very sensible post except for the very last thought. Whether we keep Rondo or not, getting the next Paul Pierce or Kevin Garnett is no easy task.

I am not looking to trade Rondo but I would also not hesitate if someone was willing to give up enough. I would not expect Rondo to fetch the next star in return though, unless we get really lucky.

I do agree with you totally though that a team with Rondo as their best player is not going far. To me, that is becoming painfully apparent this year but for saying so many will respond that you think Rondo sucks.

Rondo is a very good player and can help a team in a lot of ways. He can handle pressure and perform on the biggest stage but he can't be "the guy", at least not until he learns to shot better.

Irving can't either right now but I feel he is already slightly better than Rondo and has a higher upside. We will see how much of that promise he actually fulfills.

In the past, Tim, you have always used on/off stats as evidence to Rondo's having a bigger impact on the game then other top (and much better point guards) in the league, for example CP3 and Deron. What do you make of the numbers this year that show the C's offense is better when Rondo is off the floor according to 82games?